He was the author of the theory of permanent revolution. Leon Trotsky permanent revolution. Condemnation of the theory of permanent revolution in the USSR

History of the Russian Revolution. Volume I

Thank you for downloading the book for free electronic library http://filosoff.org/ Happy reading! Trotsky L. D. History of the Russian Revolution. Volume I. PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION. February Revolution considered a democratic revolution in the proper sense of the word. Politically, it developed under the leadership of two democratic parties: the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. A return to the “legacies” of the February Revolution is still the official dogma of the so-called democracy. All this seems to give reason to think that democratic ideologists should have hastened to sum up the historical and theoretical results of the February experience, to reveal the reasons for its collapse, to determine what its “testaments” actually consisted of and what the path to their implementation was. Both democratic parties have also enjoyed significant leisure for over thirteen years, and each of them has a staff of writers who, in any case, cannot be denied experience. And yet we do not have a single noteworthy work by democrats on the democratic revolution. The leaders of the conciliatory parties clearly do not dare to restore the course of development of the February Revolution, in which they had the opportunity to play such a prominent role. Isn't it surprising? No, quite in order. The leaders of vulgar democracy are all the more wary of the actual February Revolution, the more boldly they swear by its ethereal precepts. The fact that they themselves occupied leadership positions for several months in 1917 is precisely what makes them turn their eyes away from the events of that time. For the deplorable role of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (how ironic this name sounds today!) reflected not just the personal weakness of the leaders, but the historical degeneration of vulgar democracy and the doom of the February Revolution as a democratic one. The whole point is - and this is the main conclusion of this book - that the February Revolution was only a shell in which the core was hidden October revolution . The history of the February Revolution is the history of how the October core freed itself from its conciliatory veils. If vulgar democrats dared to objectively present the course of events, they could no more call on anyone to return to February than one could call on an ear to return to the grain that gave birth to it. That is why the inspirers of the bastard February regime are now forced to turn a blind eye to their own historical culmination, which was the culmination of their failure. One can, however, refer to the fact that liberalism, in the person of history professor Miliukov, nevertheless tried to settle scores with the “second Russian revolution.” But Miliukov does not at all hide the fact that he was only undergoing the February Revolution. There is hardly any possibility of classifying a national-liberal monarchist as a democracy, even a vulgar one, - not on the same basis, indeed, that he reconciled himself with the republic when there was nothing else left? But even leaving political considerations aside, Miliukov’s work on the February Revolution cannot in any sense be considered a scientific work. The leader of liberalism appears in his “History” as a victim, as a plaintiff, but not as a historian. His three books read like a drawn-out editorial from Rech in the days of the collapse of the Kornilov revolt. Miliukov accuses all classes and all parties of not helping his class and his party concentrate power in their hands. Miliukov attacks the democrats because they did not want or were unable to be consistent national liberals. At the same time, he himself is forced to testify that the more the democrats approached national liberalism, the more they lost their support among the masses. In the end, he has no choice but to accuse the Russian people of committing a crime called revolution. Miliukov, while writing his three-volume editorial, was still trying to look for the instigators of the Russian unrest in Ludendorff's office. Cadet patriotism, as you know, consists in explaining the greatest events in the history of the Russian people by the directorship of German agents, but on the other hand, it strives to take away Constantinople from the Turks in favor of the “Russian people”. Miliukov's historical work worthily completes the political orbit of Russian national liberalism. The revolution, like history in general, can only be understood as an objectively determined process. The development of peoples poses problems that cannot be solved by methods other than revolution. In certain eras these methods are imposed with such force that the entire nation is drawn into a tragic whirlpool. There is nothing more pathetic than moralizing about great social catastrophes! Spinoza’s rule is especially appropriate here: do not cry, do not laugh, but understand. Problems of the economy, state, politics, law, but next to them there are also problems of family, personality, artistic creativity are put anew by the revolution and revised from bottom to top. There is not a single area of ​​human creativity in which truly national revolutions do not include great milestones. This alone, we note in passing, gives the most convincing expression to the monism of historical development. By exposing all the fabrics of society, the revolution throws bright light on the main problems of sociology, this most unfortunate of sciences, which academic thought feeds with vinegar and kicks. Problems of economy and state, class and nation, party and class, individual and society are posed during great social upheavals with the utmost force of tension. If the revolution does not immediately resolve any of the issues that gave rise to it, creating only new prerequisites for their resolution, it exposes all the problems public life to end. And in sociology, more than anywhere else, the art of knowledge is the art of exposure. There is no need to say that our work does not pretend to be complete. The reader has before him mainly political history revolution. Economic issues are involved only insofar as they are necessary for understanding the political process. Problems of culture are completely left outside the scope of the study. We must not forget, however, that the process of revolution, that is, the direct struggle of classes for power, is, by its very essence, a political process. The author hopes to publish the second volume of History, dedicated to the October Revolution, this fall. Prinkipo, February 25, 1931 L. Trotsky PREFACE In the first two months of 1917, Russia was still a Romanov monarchy. Eight months later, the Bolsheviks stood at the helm, about whom few people knew at the beginning of the year and whose leaders, at the very moment of coming to power, were still under charges of treason. You won’t find a second such sharp turn in history, especially if you don’t forget that we are talking about a nation of one and a half hundred million souls. It is clear that the events of 1917, no matter how you look at them, deserve study. The history of the revolution, like any history, must first of all tell what happened and how. However, this is not enough. From the story itself it should become clear why it happened this way and not otherwise. Events can neither be considered as a chain of adventures, nor can they be strung on a thread of preconceived morality. They must obey their own pattern. The author sees his task in revealing it. The most undeniable feature of the revolution is the direct intervention of the masses in historical events. In ordinary times the state, monarchical as well as democratic, rises above the nation; history is made by specialists in this field: monarchs, ministers, bureaucrats, parliamentarians, journalists. But at those turning points when old order becomes unbearable for the masses, they break down the barriers separating them from the political arena, overthrow their traditional representatives and, through their intervention, create the starting position for the new regime. Whether this is good or bad, we will leave it to moralists to judge. We ourselves take the facts as they are given by the objective course of development. The history of revolution is for us, first of all, the history of the violent invasion of the masses into the sphere of control of their own destinies. In a revolution-ridden society, classes are fighting. It is quite obvious, however, that the changes that occur between the beginning of the revolution and the end of it, in economic fundamentals society and in the social substratum of classes are completely insufficient to explain the course of the revolution itself, which, in a short period of time, overthrows age-old institutions, creates new ones and overthrows them again. Dynamics revolutionary events is directly determined by the rapid, intense and passionate changes in the psychology of the classes that formed before the revolution. The fact is that society does not change its institutions as needed, like a master updating his tools. On the contrary, practically it takes the institutions hanging over it as something given once and for all. For decades, opposition criticism has been only safety valve for mass discontent and the condition for the stability of the social system: criticism of social democracy, for example, acquired such fundamental importance. We need completely exceptional conditions, independent of the will of individuals or parties, which break the shackles of conservatism from discontent and lead the masses to rebellion. Rapid changes in mass views and sentiments in the era of revolution, therefore, do not stem from the flexibility and mobility of the human psyche, but, on the contrary, from its deep conservatism. The chronic lag of ideas and attitudes from new objective conditions, right up to the moment when the latter befall people in the form of a catastrophe, gives rise during the revolution to a spasmodic movement of ideas and passions, which to the police heads seems to be a simple result of the activities of “demagogues.” The masses do not enter the revolution with ready-made plan social reconstruction, but with a keen sense of the impossibility of tolerating the old. Only the leading layer of the class has a political program, which, however, still needs verification of events and approval of the masses. The main political process of the revolution consists in the comprehension by the class of the tasks arising from the social crisis, in the active orientation of the masses using the method of successive approximations. Individual stages of the revolutionary process, consolidated by the replacement of some parties by others, more and more extreme, express the increasing pressure of the masses to the left, until the scope of the movement rests against objective obstacles. Then the reaction begins: disappointment of certain layers of the revolutionary class, growth of indifference and thereby strengthening of the positions of counter-revolutionary forces. This, at least, is the pattern of old revolutions. Only by studying the political processes within the masses themselves can we understand the role of parties and leaders, whom we are least inclined to ignore. They constitute, although not independent, but very important element process. Without a leading organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate, like steam not enclosed in a cylinder with a piston. But it is not the cylinder or the piston that moves, it is the steam that moves. The difficulties that stand in the way of studying changes in mass consciousness during the era of revolution are completely obvious. The oppressed classes make history in factories, in barracks, in villages, on city streets. At the same time, they are least accustomed to writing it down. Periods high voltage social passions generally leave little room for contemplation and reflection. All muses, even the plebeian muse of journalism, despite her strong sides, have a hard time during the revolution. And yet the historian’s position is by no means hopeless. Records are incomplete, scattered, random. But in the light of the events themselves, these fragments often make it possible to guess the direction and rhythm of the underlying process. For better or worse, the revolutionary party bases its tactics on taking into account changes in mass consciousness. Historical path Bolshevism testifies that such an accounting, at least in its rough outlines, is feasible. Why can’t what is accessible to a revolutionary politician in the whirlpool of struggle be accessible to a historian in hindsight? However, the processes occurring in the consciousness of the masses are neither self-sufficient nor independent. No matter how angry idealists and eclectics may be, consciousness is still determined by being. IN historical conditions formation of Russia, its economy, its classes,

Both Lenin and Trotsky sought to ensure that the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, being an organ of democracy, took into its own hands the entire state power or, more precisely, he returned what he voluntarily, under the influence of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, gave to the bourgeoisie.

Both Lenin and Trotsky saw the peasantry as a reliable ally of the proletariat. Both offered as key requirement confiscation of landowners' lands and their transfer to the peasantry. “If they take the land,” Lenin said about the peasants, “be sure that they will not give it to you, they will not ask us.” Trotsky was of the same opinion: “If the revolution transfers to the Russian peasants the land belonging to the tsar and the landowners, then the peasants will defend their property with all their might against the monarchist counter-revolution.” But, seeing in the peasantry an ally of the revolutionary proletariat, he was still extremely skeptical about the prospects of such a union and was inclined to view it as a purely temporary measure, born of the expectation of socialist revolutions in industrialized countries. Therefore, he believed that the proletariat should not make any concessions to the peasantry. “It would be a crime,” he wrote, “to solve this problem (of winning the peasant masses to the side of the proletariat. - N.V.) by adapting our policy to the national-patriotic limitations of the countryside..."

Finally, both Lenin and Trotsky assumed that the revolution in Russia would give impetus to the revolution in Europe, so they called for a stronger alliance with the proletariat of other countries. “If the Russian peasant does not decide the revolution,” Lenin wrote, “the German worker will decide it.” Trotsky interpreted this connection in an even more strictly determined manner, actually making the success of the Russian revolution directly dependent on its support by the proletariat of other states. “...The Russian worker would commit suicide, paying for his connection with the peasant at the cost of breaking his connection with the European proletariat.”

It is striking, however, when comparing these approaches that Lenin and Trotsky imagined the ways and methods of implementing the tasks facing the country, the timing and order of their implementation, and finally, those specific social and political forces that were capable of carrying out their plans. -different.

Lenin proceeded from the uniqueness of the current moment, which consisted in the development of a bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one, the transition from the first stage of the revolution to the second, and therefore his approach was distinguished by realism, the desire to ensure the maximum possible under given conditions and with a given alignment of class forces. “The uniqueness of the current moment in Russia consists in transition from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie due to the insufficient consciousness and organization of the proletariat, wrote Lenin, to the second its stage, which should give power into the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry.”

Trotsky was guided by the scheme of continuity, without stages of the revolution. He compared the February Revolution with the French late XVIII century. In France the main driving force turned out, in his opinion, to be the petty bourgeoisie of the city, which held the peasant masses under influence. In Russia, the urban petty bourgeoisie played an insignificant role, since its economic position in society was extremely weak. Russian capitalism, Trotsky believed, had acquired a high degree of concentration and centralization from the very beginning, and this was especially true in relation to the state-owned military industry. The Russian proletariat opposed the Russian bourgeoisie as class to class even on the threshold of the first Russian revolution in 1905. From this they came to the conclusion that the revolution that began in Russia, by its nature, must immediately be a proletarian revolution, without any transitional forms and intermediate stages.

Trotsky defended this point of view virtually until the end of his life. Even in “The History of the Russian Revolution,” which he wrote with a significant correction of his views taking into account Lenin’s works, he, wondering why the Petrograd Soviet in the person of Chkheidze, Tsereteli and other compromisers voluntarily transferred power to the Provisional Government, characterized this fact as the paradox of February. There really was a paradox. But not in the sense in which Trotsky understood it: they say, if the Soviet had not given power to the bourgeoisie, there would have been not a bourgeois, but a proletarian revolution. This voluntary surrender of positions by the Soviet spoke of a paradox of another kind - about the deep gap between the doctrine of Menshevism, the meaning of which was reduced to a dogmatic, monochromatic interpretation of the revolutionary process (since the revolution is bourgeois, it means that the bourgeoisie must lead it), and reality, which testified to the conservatism of the Russian bourgeoisie and the emergence of the proletariat into the role of hegemon already at the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolution.

True, in the article mentioned above, which became the subject of his polemic with Radek, he wrote: “ Permanent revolution did not mean to me at all political activity jumping over the democratic stage of the revolution, as well as through its more private stages... I formulated the tasks of the next stages of the revolution in the same way as Lenin...” But literally two years later, in the book “Permanent Revolution”, he argued differently: “Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik government, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship There is no proletariat and there cannot be anything in between, that is, no democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants.”

A year earlier, in one of the first program documents of the “internationalist left” opposition, “The struggle of the Bolsheviks-Leninists (opposition) in the USSR. Against capitulation,” Trotsky insisted on the same thing: “Between the regime of Kerensky and Chiang Kai-shek, on the one hand, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the other, there is and cannot be any middle, intermediate revolutionary regime, and whoever puts forward its bare formula is shamefully deceives the workers of the East, preparing new catastrophes.”

Understanding the history of October in the context of the theory of “permanent revolution” did not allow Trotsky to see what was clear to Lenin when assessing the prospects of the revolution. Lenin considered it socialist, but constantly opposed the immediate introduction of socialism. There were neither objective nor subjective prerequisites for this in Russia. In one of his last articles (“On Our Revolution”), he directly set the task of creating these prerequisites in conditions when the proletariat, in alliance with the peasantry, is in power. For Trotsky, the presence of the proletariat in power should be used primarily to “push” the world revolution. If this cannot be done, Trotsky believed, it means that Russia started too early and the death of the revolution is inevitable.

Does this look like the coined Leninist formula from the article “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Fight It”: ... “either die, or catch up with the advanced countries and overtake them too and economically... Die or rush forward at full speed. This is how history poses the question.” In fact, these words already contain the idea of ​​a new type of modernization, which was to be carried out in Russia after the failure of the policies of Witte and Stolypin and to lead the country along the traditional European path of industrial development.

Trotsky’s special position after February can also be judged by his stubborn reluctance to join the Bolshevik Party. At the Petrograd Conference of Inter-District Social Democrats who were trying to reconcile the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (May 1917), in the presence of Lenin, he declared: “The Bolsheviks have become Bolsheviks - and I cannot call myself a Bolshevik... Recognition of Bolshevism cannot be demanded from us.”

Channel One and Rossiya-1 have completed the broadcast of two series dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution. Someone decided to watch “Trotsky” with Konstantin Khabensky in leading role, some Russians preferred “The Demon of the Revolution,” where they were shown the history of the relationship between Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Parvus.

However, if the opinions of the audience were divided, the majority of historians almost unanimously declared: both series are historically unreliable.

The History.RF portal interviewed experts who watched both series and asked them to comment on what they saw.

Ilya Budraitskis

Publicist, historian, art critic, activist of the Russian socialist movement

"Trotsky"

It seems to me that both of these series are very far from the facts. And not only from facts known to historians, but also from those that are verified by pressing a couple of keys on a computer. Often these errors are absolutely terrible, starting with incorrect indications of the years of life. Whole storylines are not true.

If we talk about the series “Trotsky”, then many lines are completely invented by the authors of the series - Trotsky’s relationship with his father, with his son, with him, the dramaturgy of his relationship with Lenin before the revolution.

"Demon of the Revolution"

This is largely true in relation to the series “Demon of the Revolution”, where the entire plot is also based on a false statement about Lenin’s contacts with Parvus in 1915-1917, which, in general, is not confirmed by anything. Moreover, it is known that Lenin himself, knowing full well that Parvus was a German agent, refused all contacts, including even personal meetings with him, for several years before the events of 1917. Thus, the entire dramatic structure of this series is based on a false historical premise.

But it seems to me that such a formulation of the question creates among viewers of the two main Russian television channels a fundamentally incorrect understanding of history and its driving forces. And this line is associated with disrespect, contempt for the role masses in history. Here, it seems to me, the main substitution occurs.

Should I watch or not?

Instead of watching these series, I would recommend reading books. There are a huge number of not only professional historical research, but also memoirs of figures of this period, representing the most different sides. These memoirs are written in excellent Russian, and the characters speak in their own words, and not in some “cardboard” phrases invented by modern screenwriters that are put into their mouths in these series.

Yuri Zhukov

Soviet and Russian historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher Institute Russian history RAS

"Trotsky"

This is just complete nonsense! The adventurer is made a hero, although he never was. After all, no one remembered that the magnificent Yusupov palace in Arkhangelskoye near Moscow was Trotsky’s dacha. They could compare where Trotsky lived and where Lenin lived. Trotsky lived like a tsar, was endlessly on vacation, hunting, was sick, suffered, and yet, supposedly, he created everything - he made the revolution, and the Red Army... You see, this is unbearable. Any normal researcher knows: when Trotsky was still People's Commissar for foreign affairs and failed the whole business in Brest, the Tsarist Lieutenant General Mikhail Dmitrievich Bonch-Bruevich already headed the Supreme Military Council and the formation of the Red Army began. And when, finally, the disgraced Trotsky was removed from the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and transferred to the People's Commissariat for Military and Naval Affairs, an almost ready-made army was at his service. But he just drove an armored train along the fronts and made empty, meaningless speeches - and for some reason he became the creator of the Red Army and the winner of the Civil War. This did not happen, this is not true!

"Demon of the Revolution"

This series cannot be praised either, because initially the script was based on the memoirs of Fritz Platten, the same Social Democrat, member of the Swiss parliament who agreed with the Germans on the passage of Russian political emigrants through Germany. But the most important thing in this was the debate that was waged from the report of the February Revolution to the departure of the first train of emigrants, where Lenin and Zinoviev were traveling. It was a dramatic moment when the Central Committee was bombarded with applications for homecoming. Then, when it turned out that the French and British would not let our political emigrants in, the question arose about going through Germany. Many were reluctant at first, but in the end four trains passed through Germany; everyone arrived - the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, the Socialist Revolutionaries, and the anarchists... You see, the main thing is not how you rode on the train! And for some reason they came up with German Parvus money, which has never happened in my life. After all, this problem came up three times, and three times everyone refuted it. And the most important thing was written by Melgunov (Sergei Petrovich Melgunov - Russian historian and political figure, participant in the anti-Bolshevik struggle after the October Revolution. - Note ed.). Melgunov hated the Soviet regime, hated the Bolsheviks, went into exile and wrote only anti-Soviet works, but he, in his book “The Golden German Key to the Bolshevik Revolution,” admitted that German money is a lie, and Parvus is a rogue and an adventurer. Why repeat threadbare gossip pulled from the grave?

Should I watch or not?

I don’t follow television, but I was forced to watch these series because I do this as a profession. But absolutely none positive aspects I don't see any of these series.

Nikolay Kopylov

Associate Professor, Department of World and National History, MGIMO University, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Chief Specialist scientific sector of the Russian Military Historical Society

"Trotsky"

Of course, these series have little to do with history as such. This, so to speak, is our modern idea of ​​those people and that era. But I don’t know how you can make a series about Trotsky without getting acquainted with his works, where he reveals himself as a person. In principle, even the very first episode is incomprehensible. Yes, there was the fact of Trotsky’s arrival on the Eastern Front, where he, so to speak, with forced terrorist measures stopped the retreat of the Red Army. If you look at the documents (I’m currently working with documents from 1918 in the archive), then terrible panic and disorganization really reigned there. Then there was a real threat to the power of the Bolsheviks, and it was necessary to take very quick and effective measures. But the way it is presented in the film, interspersed with erotic scenes, is completely worthless. It turns out that in our modern understanding, a revolution is a conspiracy of bandits who seize power in the country.

"Demon of the Revolution"

First of all, Lenin is not like Lenin. Best of all, in my opinion, he was played by Kirill Lavrov back in Soviet times. Secondly, “The Demon of the Revolution” again exaggerates the theory of German money and the slogan that was thrown in during the party struggle in 1917: “Lenin is a German spy!” It’s a good version, but no one has documented it yet.

Let's just say there are two levels of history. The first one is historical knowledge, historical science When scientists study history, they read documents. This story is impartial. She speaks harshly: this is black, but this is white, regardless of which regime is in power. And there is a story in our current social refraction: this is how we see or what we we want see in it.

Should I watch or not?

If you look at it from a professional historical point of view, then both of these series are suitable for viewing once (and even then you may not watch it to the end). From the point of view of modern public taste - the taste is the same, so is the product. I wouldn't recommend anyone I know to watch these series. There is no need to position such films as historical. Do you think young people watch about Lenin, even a film like this? My students, for example, missed this series. They usually watch what I recommend to them.

Of course, you can remember the sacramental phrase: “This is the director’s point of view,” and then this point of view can be challenged. But in these series you can see our modern complexes- fear of revolution, fear of knowledge of this process. Probably, to understand it properly, another hundred years will need to pass...

Leon Trotsky can be called one of the most controversial figures in the history of the 20th century. He was an ideologist of the revolution, created the Red Army and the Comintern, dreamed of a world revolution, but became a victim of his own ideas.

"Demon of the Revolution"

Trotsky's role in the 1917 revolution was key. One can even say that without his participation it would have failed. According to the American historian Richard Pipes, Trotsky actually led the Bolsheviks in Petrograd during the absence of Vladimir Lenin, when he was hiding in Finland.

Trotsky's importance for the revolution is difficult to overestimate. On October 12, 1917, as chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, he formed the Military Revolutionary Committee. Joseph Stalin, who in the future would become Trotsky’s main enemy, wrote in 1918: “All work on practical organization The uprising took place under the direct leadership of the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, Comrade Trotsky.” During the attack on Petrograd by the troops of General Pyotr Krasnov in October (November) 1917, Trotsky personally organized the defense of the city.

Trotsky was called the “demon of the revolution,” but he was also one of its economists.

Trotsky came to Petrograd from New York. In the book of the American historian Anthony Sutton “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” it is written about Trotsky that he was closely connected with the tycoons of Wall Street and went to Russia with a generous financial support then American President Woodrow Wilson. According to Sutton, Wilson personally gave Trotsky a passport and gave the “demon of the revolution” $10,000 (more than $200,000 in today’s money).

This information, however, is controversial. Lev Davidovich himself commented in the newspaper: “ New life» rumors about dollars from bankers:

“Regarding the story of 10 thousand marks or dollars, neither is mine
the government and I knew nothing about it until information about it appeared
already here, in Russian circles and the Russian press.” Trotsky further wrote:

“Two days before I left New York for Europe, my German associates gave me a farewell meeting.” At this meeting, a gathering for the Russian revolution took place. The collection gave $310.”

However, another historian, again an American, Sam Landers, in the 90s found evidence in the archives that Trotsky did bring money to Russia. In the amount of $32,000 from the Swedish socialist Karl Moor.

Creation of the Red Army

Trotsky is also credited with creating the Red Army. He set a course for building an army on traditional principles: unity of command, restoration death penalty, mobilization, restoration of insignia, uniform uniforms and even military parades, the first of which took place on May 1, 1918 in Moscow, on Khodynskoye Field.

An important step in the creation of the Red Army was the fight against the “military anarchism” of the first months of its existence new army. Trotsky reinstated executions for desertion. By the end of 1918, the power of the military committees was reduced to nothing. People's Commissar Trotsky, by his personal example, showed the Red commanders how to restore discipline.

On August 10, 1918, he arrived in Sviyazhsk to take part in the battles for Kazan. When the 2nd Petrograd Regiment fled without permission from the battlefield, Trotsky applied the ancient Roman ritual of decimation (execution of every tenth by lot) against deserters.

On August 31, Trotsky personally shot 20 people from among the unauthorized retreating units of the 5th Army. At the instigation of Trotsky, by decree of July 29, the entire population of the country liable for military service between the ages of 18 and 40 was registered, and military conscription was established. This made it possible to sharply increase the number armed forces. In September 1918, there were already about half a million people in the ranks of the Red Army - more than two times more than 5 months ago. By 1920, the number of the Red Army was already more than 5.5 million people.

Barrier detachments

When it comes to barrage detachments, people usually remember Stalin and his famous order number 227 “Not a step back,” however, Leon Trotsky was ahead of his opponent in the creation of barrage detachments. It was he who was the first ideologist of the punitive barrage detachments of the Red Army. In his memoirs “Around October,” he wrote that he himself substantiated to Lenin the need to create barrier detachments:

“To overcome this disastrous instability, we need strong defensive detachments of communists and militants in general. We must force him to fight. If you wait until the man loses his senses, it will probably be too late.”

Trotsky was generally distinguished by his harsh judgments: “As long as the evil tailless monkeys called people, proud of their technology, build armies and fight, the command will put soldiers between possible death in front and inevitable death behind.”

Over-industrialization

Leon Trotsky was the author of the concept of super-industrialization. The industrialization of the young Soviet state could be carried out in two ways. The first path, which Nikolai Bukharin supported, involved the development of private entrepreneurship by attracting foreign loans.

Trotsky insisted on his concept of super-industrialization, which consisted of growth with the help of internal resources, using the means of agriculture and light industry to develop heavy industry.

The pace of industrialization was accelerated. Everything was given from 5 to 10 years. In this situation, the peasantry had to “pay” for the costs of rapid industrial growth. If the directives drawn up in 1927 for the first five-year plan were guided by the “Bukharin approach,” then by the beginning of 1928 Stalin decided to revise them and gave the green light to accelerated industrialization. To catch up with the developed countries of the West, it was necessary to “run a distance of 50–100 years” in 10 years. The first (1928-1932) and second (1933-1937) five-year plans were subordinated to this task. That is, Stalin followed the path proposed by Trotsky.

Red five-pointed star

Leon Trotsky can be called one of the most influential “art directors” of Soviet Russia. It was thanks to him that the five-pointed star became the symbol of the USSR. When it was officially approved by the order of the People's Commissar of Military Affairs of the Republic Leon Trotsky No. 321 dated May 7, 1918, the five-pointed star received the name “Mars star with a plow and hammer.” The order also stated that this sign “is the property of persons serving in the Red Army.”

Seriously interested in esotericism, Trotsky knew that the five-pointed pentagram has a very powerful energy potential and is one of the most powerful symbols.

Symbol Soviet Russia the swastika, the cult of which was very strong in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, could also become. She was depicted on the “Kerenki”, swastikas were painted on the wall of the Ipatiev House by Empress Alexandra Feodorovna before the execution, but by Trotsky’s sole decision the Bolsheviks settled on a five-pointed star. The history of the 20th century has shown that the “star” is stronger than the “swastika”. Later, the stars shone over the Kremlin, replacing the double-headed eagles.

18:00 4.07.2008

VKontakte Facebook Odnoklassniki

Official historiography convinces us that the October Revolution was prepared by the Bolsheviks, or more precisely, their leaders, Lenin and Trotsky. They convince us that they were able to disintegrate the army and

Official historiography convinces us that the October Revolution was prepared by the Bolsheviks, or more precisely, their leaders, Lenin and Trotsky. We are convinced that they were able to disintegrate the army and the country and overthrow the provisional government. At the same time, Soviet historians kept telling us about the brilliant gift of foresight of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and his wonderful intuition. Democratic historians, as well as some patriotic authors, accuse the German government of financing the October Revolution. And all responsibility for the coup is placed on the Kaiser and Ludendorff. But is it? Was the leader of the world proletariat, Lenin, really that brilliant? And is only Germany responsible for the Great October Revolution?

“Keeping foreign states under threat of revolution has been England’s craft for quite some time now.”

Otto von Bismarck

“It is bad to have an Anglo-Saxon as an enemy, but it is even worse to have him as a friend.”

General A.E. Vandam

Shiryaev Mikhail Nikolaevich, analyst: At the time of the February Revolution, so cleverly carried out by generals at headquarters and deputies of the State Duma, neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor the majority of their supporters were in Russia. Leiba Bronstein, aka Trotsky, has not appeared in Russia since the revolution of 1905-1907. Lev Davidovich, having stolen the passport of Colonel Trotsky, lived abroad in Austria for 8 years. He was actually recruited by Gelfand-Parvus and directly under his leadership he worked for German and British intelligence. Under the guise of a journalist, Bronstein-Trotsky lived in Turkey during the Balkan War of 1913, then he returned to Europe to Austria.

With the outbreak of World War I, Trotsky was forced to leave the territory of Austria-Hungary, which was fighting against Russia. Lev Davidovich settled in France and began active subversive anti-Russian work there. He was one of the organizers of uprisings in Russian regiments that fought in Western Front. Trotsky was arrested, but thanks to high patrons in the French government, he was released. And he quickly left first for Spain and then for the USA. Trotsky settled down very well in America. The fact is that the brother of Trotsky’s mother, Abram Zhivotovsky, was a major banker in Russia. At the same time, he was a partner of the American bankers the Warburgs, and through them he was connected with Jacob Schiff. Sidney Reilly, a confidant of the banker Zhivotovsky, came into contact with Trotsky in America.

Chumicheva Tatyana Evgenievna, correspondent: It is worth noting that Sidney Reilly was an agent of William Weissman, the chief of British intelligence in North America. And William Weissman himself was on short terms with US President Wilson’s consultant, Colonel House. Colonel House was the eminence grise of the White House at that time. The colonel liaised between Wall Street bankers and the US presidential administration. So Leiba Bronstein, who had already worked in Turkey for British intelligence, again found himself in the circle of Anglo-American intelligence services, closely associated with Schiff and company.

Lev Davidovich immediately upon his arrival in America received a limousine with a driver at his disposal. He was greatly respected and appreciated by Colonel House, William Wiseman, and Sidney Reilly. And when Sidney Reilly worked for Japanese intelligence and managed to steal the plan for the defense of Port Arthur and hand it over to the Japanese, Trotsky led the revolution in St. Petersburg in 1905, receiving money from Japanese intelligence agent Colonel Akashi. So Leiba Davidovich Bronstein and Sidney Reilly were colleagues in the fight against Russian Empire. Immediately after the February Revolution, carried out with money from Wall Street, Trotsky and a group of comrades were sent to Russia.

“After Trotsky visited the Russian consul in New York with an application to leave for Russia, he (Trotsky) and members of his family received everything Required documents. On March 27, Trotsky and his family left New York on the Norwegian steamer Kristianiafiord.

It is surprising that Trotsky, who constantly called for the overthrow of the provisional government, did not have any problems with obtaining entry documents. Although, however, this is understandable, since the Kerensky government was nothing more than a puppet of the Allies. But while staying in Canada in Halifax, there was an embarrassment.

“The group of revolutionaries was removed from the ship in accordance with official instructions received on March 29, 1917 by the naval officer on duty in Halifax by telegraph from London. The telegram reported that Trotsky’s group was located at Kristianiafiord, which should be removed and detained until instructions were received.”

Nikolai Starikov, “February 1917. Revolution or special operation?

Shiryaev Mikhail Nikolaevich, analyst: Together with Trotsky, his fellow passengers were taken off the ship. Among them were Leiba Fishelev, Gershon Melnichansky and Grigory Chudnovsky. The order to release Trotsky was received a few weeks later from the deputy director of British intelligence, Claude Dancy. Moreover, the release was carried out at the request of the provisional government.

“The British are releasing Trotsky at the request of the provisional government. It seems incredible, but Foreign Minister Miliukov addressed the British authorities with such a request. Is Miliukov out of his mind? There’s nothing wrong with him, it’s just that without his appeal, the British won’t get out of this situation gracefully.”

Nikolai Starikov “February 1917. Revolution or special operation?

With his request, Miliukov created an alibi for British intelligence. It turned out that the Russian authorities themselves are asking to let in terrorists and defeatists. This means that they are not dangerous for the Provisional Government. Miliukov could not refuse the request of his friend and sponsor Jacob Schiff. Obviously, it was Schiff who instructed his longtime friend Miliukov to ask the British to release Lev Davidovich Trotsky to Russia, who was going to overthrow the government in which Miliukov himself was Minister of Foreign Affairs.

“Miliukov is a personal friend of Jacob Schiff, the American tycoon, the general sponsor of all Russian revolutions. That is why the Provisional Government is asking to release Trotsky, who will immediately begin to overthrow him.”

Nikolai Starikov, “February 1917. Revolution or special operation?

Thus, British and American intelligence, which sent Trotsky’s group to Russia on behalf of Jacob Schiff and under pressure from Colonel House, turned out to be clean. The Provisional Government itself wanted Trotsky to come to Petrograd. What did Lenin do on the eve of February 1917? Vladimir Ulyanov did not even realize that in a few weeks the Great and Bloodless One would take place. Here is an excerpt from his speech on January 9, 1917 in Switzerland: “We old men may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution. But I can, I think, express with great confidence the hope that the youth, who work so wonderfully in the socialist movement of Switzerland and the whole world, that they will have the happiness not only to fight, but also to win in the coming proletarian revolution.”

V.I. Lenin, “Report on the 1905 Revolution”

Bolgarchuk Lidiya Andreevna, journalist: On the eve of the February Revolution, the Bolsheviks were in great despondency. There have been no congresses of Social Democrats for 10 years because there was no money. Since the revolution of 1905, Wall Street bankers did not consider it necessary to feed the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and only fed them. Since this entire company was not needed for the February Revolution, Lenin was not aware of the preparations for the Great and Bloodless Revolution. And suddenly, unexpectedly for Vladimir Ilyich, the February Revolution took place. And behind it came Kerensky’s amnesty for terrorists, spies and defeatists.

"Dear friend. Yesterday I read about the amnesty. We all dream about the trip. If you're coming home, stop by first and let's talk. I would very much like to give you instructions in England to find out quietly and surely whether I could pass through? I shake your hand, your V.U.”

Lenin begins to look for ways to Russia. Moreover, judging by his correspondence, Vladimir Ilyich does not think about the route through Germany. He is tossing around.

“We can’t wait any longer. All hopes for a legal move are in vain. It is necessary to get to Russia at any cost. The only plan next. Find a Swede like me. But I don’t know Swedish, so the Swede must be deaf and dumb.”

From Lenin's letter to Ganetsky.

“Take papers in your name for travel to France and England. And I will travel along them through England and Holland to Russia. I can wear a wig. The photo will be taken of me already wearing a wig. And I come to the consulate in Bern with your papers already in a wig.”

From Lenin’s letter to V.A. Karpinsky.

Lenin apparently believed that travel through Germany, which was at war with Russia, was impossible. And that in this case he will be immediately arrested in Russia. At the same time, the Germans did not want to let Lenin in. And this despite the fact that Vladimir Ilyich was close to Parvus, and Parvus was the main consultant to the German government on Russia. The idea of ​​traveling through Germany was first proposed by the Menshevik Martov.

“Martov’s plan is good. You have to work hard for him. Only we cannot do this directly. In addition to Martov, non-party Russians must appeal to the Swiss ministers with a request to talk about this with the ambassador of the German government in Bern.”

From Lenin’s letter to V.A. Karpinsky

But the Germans are confident that their agents, Lenin and company, will be arrested in Russia. And they don’t want to let Vladimir Ilyich through.

“We probably won’t get into Russia; England won’t let us in. It doesn’t work through Germany.”

Simakov Nikolai Kuzmich, specialist in church history, professor at the International Slavic Academy of Sciences: At the same time, the allies do not want to give Lenin and his group passage through their territories. After all, this is outright anti-Russian activity. Sending Trotsky's group to Russia, the head of British intelligence in America, William Weissman, created an alibi by arranging a demonstrative arrest of Lev Davidovich in Canada. In the case of Lenin, the allies also need an alibi. Lenin understands this well.

“England will never let me through. More like interning."

But suddenly on March 18 everything changes. Germany gives its consent to the passage of Vladimir Ilyich and his associates to Russia through its territory.

“Our party decided to unconditionally accept the proposal for the passage of Russian emigrants through Germany.”

“You may say that the Germans will not give you a carriage. Let’s bet that they will.”

Shiryaev Mikhail Nikolaevich, analyst: What happened? And why did the Germans agree to let Lenin pass through their territory? In order to understand this, you need to assess the geopolitical situation in 1917. In order to take Russia out of the game and enter the war, Colonel House, together with the authorities of France and England, developed an ingenious plan and successfully implemented it. The Germans, who were afraid to send Lenin’s group to Russia due to the high probability of its arrest, were convinced that Kerensky was absolutely under control and would not only not touch Lenin, but would help him in every possible way. The Union authorities guaranteed Vladimir Ilyich that he and his people would receive entry documents to Russia without any problems.

Considering the chaos going on in Petrograd, as well as support from Kerensky and huge cash provided by the allies and the German authorities, the Bolsheviks were likely to disperse the Provisional Government and constituent Assembly. Schiff and the Warburgs, as well as London and Paris, needed this so that there would be no legitimate power left in Russia. And so that the Russians could not, even if they were victorious, lay claim to either the Bosporus, or Constantinople, or indemnity. Only thanks to security guarantees for Lenin and his people were the Allies able to obtain permission from Berlin to allow Vladimir Ilyich to enter Russia.

“By sending Lenin to Russia, our government assumed a special responsibility. From a military point of view, his passage through Germany had its justification. Russia was about to fall into the abyss.”

From the memoirs of General Ludendorff.

Bolgarchuk Lidiya Andreevna, journalist: Ilyich is actively preparing for his departure to Russia. He unexpectedly makes strict demands on the German side regarding the passage itself. And this despite the fact that until recently the Germans did not want to let Ilyich in, and he was eager to go to Russia and panicked, fearing that he would not be able to get to his homeland. These are the requirements.

“All emigrants are coming, regardless of their views on the war. The carriage enjoys the right of extraterritoriality. No one has the right to enter or exit the carriage without the permission of Friedrich Plato. No passport or baggage control.”

Bolgarchuk Lidiya Andreevna, journalist: The German envoy to Switzerland Rember was outraged by these demands. But in Berlin they agree to everything. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin goes to Russia. And here is a list of those with whom Lenin traveled:

1. Ulyanov Vladimir Ilyich
2. Sulishvili David Sokratovich
3. Ulyanova Nadezhda Konstantinovna
4. Armand Inessa Fedorovna
5. Safarov Georgy Ivanovich
6. Safarova-Martoshkina Valentina Sergeevna
7. Kharitonov Moisey Matkovich
8. Konstantinovich Anna Evgenievna
9. Usievich Grigory Alexandrovich
10. Kon Elena Feliksovna
11. Ravich Lat Naumovna
12. Tskhakaya Mikhail Grigorievich
13. Skovna Abram Anchilovich
14. Radomylsky (Zinoviev) Ovsey Aronovich
15. Radomylskaya Zlata Evnovna
16. Radek (Sobelson)
17. Ryvkin Zalman Berg Osenovich
18. Slyusareva Nadezhda Mikhailovna
19. Goberman Mikhail Vulfovich
20. Abramovich Maya Zelikov

There are 31 people in total."

From the work of Nikolai Starikov “February 1917. Revolution or special operation?

It is important to note that the Germans and allies sent railway through Germany there is far from one sealed carriage with revolutionaries. In total, three trains carrying Russophobes of all stripes were sent into our country. Several hundred people. Here is a list of passengers on another train sent by the Germans to Russia: 1. Axelrod Tobia Leizerovich
2. Aptekman Joseph Vasilievich
3. Asiarinami Sosipatr Samsonovich
4. Avdeev Ivan Ananyevich
5. Bronshtein Semyon Yulievich
6. Belenky Zakhary Davidovich
7. Bagrova Valentina Leonidovna
8. Bronstein Rosa Abramovna
9. Baguidze Samuil Grigorievich
10. Voikov Petr Lazarevich
11. Vanadze Alexander Semenovich
12. Gishvaliner Petr Iosifovich
13. Gogiashvili Polikarp Davydovich
14. Gokhblit Matvey Iosifovich
15. Geronimus Joseph Borisovich
16. Lunacharsky Anatoly Vasilievich

In total, over 200 people.”
Anthony Sutton, "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution."

Chumicheva Tatyana Evgenievna, correspondent: It should be noted that almost all of these people will play a significant role in the history of Russia and will receive various positions in the revolutionary leadership of our country. This means they will be responsible for the terrible genocide of the Russian people and Russian culture. It is obvious that by throwing revolutionary terrorist groups into Russia and supplying them with money, the West seemed to be arranging competition between them - whoever fulfills the obligation better will receive power and money. And in Russia, all of them were met with open arms by Kerensky, whom they were all going to overthrow. This is how Lenin and his comrades were greeted when they arrived in Germany via Stockholm:

“At the Finland Station on April 16, 1917, the revolutionaries were met by a guard of honor. Immediately upon arrival, the leader of the world proletariat gave a speech, ending which he proclaimed: “Long live the socialist revolution!” That is, he called for the violent overthrow of the existing system. And what government bodies? As Lenin’s allies promised, no one did anything.”

From the work of Nikolai Starikov “February 1917. Revolution or special operation?

Trotsky, who arrived in Petrograd, was also solemnly greeted. They also organize a rally for him at the station. Trotsky also calls for a socialist revolution, and no one touches him. He calmly moves into the apartment of Serebrovsky, the director of the plant that belonged to Nobel. But here a problem arose. Lenin and Trotsky are enemies. Trotsky cannot forgive Lenin for the theft of the Pravda newspaper. And then another dedicated leader of the revolution comes out of the shadows - Yankel Movshovich Sverdlov. In the Russian version, Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov. His brother Benya Movshovich Sverdlov, being an American banker associated with Jacob Schiff during the 1905 revolution, was involved in supplying weapons to revolutionaries. Through him, Yakov Sverdlov was promoted to the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party. Sverdlov, thanks to his connection with Schiff, was an informed person and actively began to reconcile and unite Trotsky and Lenin. But the most important thing that reconciled the Bolshevik leaders was the money given for the revolution by American bankers. And in managing the money of the revolution, Comrade Andrei, as Sverdlov was called in the party, was important person, because he was directly connected not with German intermediaries, like Lenin, but with customers, with Schiff and company.

“Germany itself served as an intermediate link in the financial chain, receiving money from Zionist circles in America and other countries, at least $12 million passed through Schiff, according to French intelligence, and 21 million rubles through Lord Milner. The superconfidence shown to Sverdlov in the spring of 1917 clearly proves: in these circles, Comrade Andrei - Sverdlov - was already known.”
Valery Shambarov, “Occult roots of the October Revolution.”

Shiryaev Mikhail Nikolaevich, analyst: So, Lenin, Trotsky and hundreds of other revolutionaries were transferred to Russia with huge sums of money issued by American bankers. At the same time, the Allies and Wall Street, in collusion with the Germans, moved fighting to the Russian front. The goal of the First World War, set by American behind-the-scenes circles, was actually achieved. Immediately upon Lenin's arrival in Russia, the United States, breaking its promise, given to Germany, enter the war in order to participate in the division of the fruits of victory. Little remained to be done to finalize the plans of the people whose interests Jacob Schiff represented. Sverdlov, Lenin and Trotsky should have done this.